Gambling: Remote Operators

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Under the proposed legislation the Gambling Commission will have the power to specify, in licence conditions, particular information that remote gambling operators must obtain from their customers at registration. The commission will also have powers to specify the sort of checks that should be carried out in relation to such information. The commission might include as a licensing condition, for example, that licensees must require their customers to declare a connection to a particular industry or sport. The commission may attach conditions to a specific class of operating licence, or attach specific conditions to individual operating licences.
	Should the commission impose licence conditions relating to registration, a licensee must fulfil such conditions (which may be supported by a code of best practice); and if they fail to do so, a review of their licence will result. Furthermore the commission may use its powers to attach a licence condition requiring licensees to share information taken at registration with the commission or other specified bodies, including sporting regulators.
	Different registration requirements may be appropriate for different classes of operator depending on the regulatory risk presented by that operator. This will be an issue for the Gambling Commission to determine.
	The Gambling Bill requires anyone making or accepting (which includes negotiating) bets in the course of business to possess an operating licence. "In the course of business" will take its natural meaning in the new legislation. There may be instances when a customer using a betting exchange, or another betting service, could be classed as acting in the course of business and therefore require an operating licence. It is open to the Gambling Commission to issue guidance on this matter.

Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative

Baroness Amos: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Hilary Benn) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	On 17 March 2005 the Department for International Development hosted a high level conference on the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). The EITI was launched by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in September 2002. It seeks to increase the transparency of payments by oil, gas, and mining companies to governments, as well as the transparency of the revenues received by governments. The aim is to ensure that revenues from the extractive industries fulfil their potential as an important engine for economic growth and social development in developing countries, instead of leading to conflict, corruption, and poverty.
	The conference follows on from an earlier EITI conference held at Lancaster House in June 2003. Since then implementation has begun in nine countries—Azerbaijan, Congo, Ghana, Kyrgyz Republic, Nigeria, Peru, Sao Tome e Principe, Timor Leste and Trinidad and Tobago. There has been considerable progress towards increased transparency across all nine countries, and two—Azerbaijan and the Kyrgyz Republic—have now published numbers under EITI.
	The conference on 17 March provided an opportunity to take stock of progress in implementation so far, agree a set of criteria and guidelines for implementing countries and companies and encourage practical steps to internationalise EITI. The UK launched the EITI source book as guidance for countries and companies interested in supporting the initiative. The UK also announced the formation of an international advisory group which will agree an approach to the future management of international EITI support, incentives for implementation and a suitable process for validating implementation. A number of countries, including Niger, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo and Equatorial Guinea, used the conference as an opportunity to announce their plans to implement EITI; and several countries and international organisations, including the United Kingdom, France, Norway, the United States of America, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, agreed to increase financial and technical support for EITI.

Claims Management Companies

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am announcing today the intention, when I bring forward proposals for new legislation giving effect to the Government's proposed reform package for legal services following Sir David Clementi's report, to bring the claims management company sector within statutory regulation. I anticipate this would be with a front-line regulator responsible for the sector subject to oversight by the proposed new oversight regulator, the Legal Services Board.
	The Government's response to the Better Regulation Task Force's report Better Routes to Redress made it clear that claims management companies, which often largely deal with acquiring personal injury claims, must be properly regulated. Claim management companies are well known for their high-pressure selling, sharp practices and targeting of vulnerable people and a major driver in fuelling the perceptions of a compensation culture.
	Claims management companies are currently relatively lightly regulated. There has been an attempt to introduce further voluntary regulation by a non-profit making body called the Claims Standards Council (CSC). The CSC has worked hard to produce comprehensive rules, consumer and commercial codes of practice and to secure the engagement of the companies working in the unregulated sector. However, claims management companies have failed to demonstrate anything like the commitment that I would have hoped to have seen by now to clean up their act. I must therefore consider how best to safeguard consumer interests, for now and for the future. The CSC can still play an important role in helping to close the current regulatory gap. If it is able to make sufficient progress to preparing the sector to be regulated it could also be a candidate for the role of the new front-line regulator, subject to being judged as fit for purpose by the LSB.
	For now I believe that we have the best opportunity to ensure consumers get a better deal through a combination of more rigorous use of existing protections and the introduction of compulsory insurance regulation via the FSA and the CSC's voluntary regulation initiative. For the future we will work towards developing and delivering the watertight statutory regulatory mechanism for claims management companies that is self-evidently needed.

House of Lords: Millbank Island Site

Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am pleased to report that the House will shortly complete the purchase of the Millbank island site, comprising the offices currently known as l Millbank, Millbank House and 5 Great College Street. The building is being purchased on a 999-year lease at a cost of £65 million plus VAT on part of the price.
	The building will provide a long-term solution to the accommodation needs of Members, their staff and the staff of the House. One-third of the building, Millbank House, is already occupied by the House on a short-term lease, and the purchase secures that accommodation. The House will gain vacant possession of a further third of the building in September 2007, and it is anticipated that following refurbishment that part of the accommodation will be ready for occupation in 2009. The final part of the building is occupied by a third party on a lease which expires in 2015.
	The House Committee and the Administration and Works Committee will be considering the strategy for the refurbishment in the summer.

R v Rayment & Others

Lord Goldsmith: The trial judge in the case of R v Rayment & Others at the Central Criminal Court has today, 22 March 2005, discharged the jury, ending the proceedings.
	The trial dealt with an alleged fraud over contracts for the construction of London's Jubilee Line extension project. The prosecution arose from allegations that the defendants conspired to defraud London Underground by gaining access to confidential insider information, which was used against London Underground Limited's interests during the course of its dealings with tenderers and contractors on the Jubilee Line extension project. The information was relevant to the award of contracts worth tens of millions of pounds and two substantial claims for additional monies under contracts awarded in connection with the Jubilee Line extension project. The allegations also concerned corrupting public officials entrusted with safeguarding London Underground Limited's interests.
	Experienced lawyers considered the evidence in detail and a decision to prosecute was taken. Charges were brought in February 2000. Lord Williams, when he was Attorney-General, granted consent in February 2000 to prosecute the corruption case on the basis that there was sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and it was in the public interest to prosecute.
	The CPS was ready for trial in 2001 but the case was split into two trials. The first trial started with a jury on 26 June 2003. The case has been affected by delays and breaks. Time has been lost due to illness, scheduled holidays, periods of paternity leave, an operation and sickness of defendants. Legal argument has also involved substantial periods where the jury were not required to hear evidence. For example, in the last seven months the jury has heard evidence on only 13 days of the 140 available.
	The judge's ruling followed submissions by all parties in response to a request from the judge.
	Prosecuting counsel have advised that it is their clear view that there have been such delays and interruptions to this case that a fair trial is now impossible. Counsel formed a judgment that the case ought to be stopped. The DPP and I agree with that view and, therefore, approved prosecution counsel's statement to the trial judge informing her of this view.
	I agreed with the DPP last year the need for more control and robust management of large cases. The DPP has responded by developing a system, which will see a case management panel, chaired by the DPP, to consider the management of very large cases. The panel will consider issues such as the selection of charges, the number of defendants, likely number and length of trials and selection of trial advocates. It will also monitor progress of the case and key case management decisions during its life. It will be coupled with a similar process across the 42 CPS areas where chief crown prosecutors will review the most serious and lengthy cases in their areas. This will be implemented from 4 April 2005 and, I believe, offers real potential for getting a better grip on cases such as the current matter.
	In addition, the DPP has recently announced a new structure to deal with the most serious and complex cases in CPS headquarters. This will involve the DPP in more direct and substantial control over such cases. I welcome this restructuring.
	On 22 March the Lord Chief Justice issued a protocol for dealing with lengthy trials, which I welcomed. The protocol emphasises the need for robust and well informed case management to identify and allow the court to focus on the real issues in the case. The new protocol fits clearly with the criminal case management framework that I issued last July together with Lord Falconer, Baroness Scotland and the Lord Chief Justice. The protocol and framework will continue the culture change in the way in which all criminal justice practitioners operate. The public are entitled to an efficient and effective criminal justice system and cases such as the present one must never be allowed to happen again.
	This decision will cause great public disquiet as it causes me considerable disquiet. Most serious allegations have not in the end been brought to a final conclusion. It is important, and in the interest of the defendants, to underline that these allegations have not been proved and that they have maintained they are not guilty.
	Very considerable public money has been expended. Much time for a jury and for judge and defendants has been expended. It is important to learn what lessons we can. I have therefore asked Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of CPS, Stephen Wooler, to report to me on this case under Section 2(1)(b) of the CPS Inspectorate Act 2000. The terms of reference of this review will be drawn up shortly. The DPP has confirmed that the prosecution will provide full co-operation in this inquiry.

Chemical Protection Programme

Lord Bach: My right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Adam Ingram) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The UK's chemical protection programme is designed to protect against the use of chemical weapons. Such a programme is permitted by the Chemical Weapons Convention, with which the United Kingdom is fully compliant. Under the terms of the convention, we are required to provide information annually to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). In accordance with the Government's commitment to openness, I am placing in the Library of the House a copy of the summary that has been provided to the organisation outlining the UK's chemical protection programme in 2004.

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

Lord Rooker: My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I have today published two consultation papers on proposed secondary legislation and guidance to implement some of the development control provisions in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The papers take forward provisions to simplify and speed up the planning system and to facilitate greater community involvement.
	We are preparing to implement the development control provisions in Part 4 of the Act in stages. Where the provisions in the Act require secondary legislation we are proposing changes to the General Development Procedure Order (GDPO), the Listed Building Regulations and the Advertisement Regulations. We are considering responses to our first consultation paper entitled Changes to the Development Control System published on 30 November 2004. A further consultation paper Planning Control of Mezzanine and Other Internal Floor Space Additions was published on 3 March (Official Report, House of Commons; cols. 93–94 WS).
	Changes to the Development Control System Second Consultation Paper covers local development orders (LDO's). Local authorities will be able to grant permission for the type of development specified in the order. There will be no need for a planning application. It is envisaged that there will be reduced costs and greater certainty for developers, whether they be householders or businesses. Local authorities may benefit by dealing with fewer routine applications, thereby freeing resources for the consideration of more major applications. LDOs might potentially prove a useful tool for local authorities seeking to deliver high quality housing developments more quickly.
	The paper covers the interrelated subjects of outline planning permission, reserved matters and design and access statements. I announced in a Written Statement on 23 March 2004 (Official Report, House of Commons; cols. 48–50 WS) during the passage of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill that applications for outline planning permission must provide a level of information to assess all the significant environmental impacts. The paper proposes that applications should include information on use, quantum of development, indicative layout, scale parameters and indicative access points. It also proposes some amendments to reserved matters requiring further detailed information. The amendments include information on layout and scale. The new Act contains a requirement for both design and access statements. The Government now propose—for simplicity and efficiency—that one statement would cover both design and access. The purpose of the statement is to explain and justify the design and access principles and concepts on which a development proposal is based. Most applications for planning permission and all applications for listed building consent will need to be accompanied by a design and access statement. The length of statements should be proportional to the complexity of the application.
	The paper covers procedures for determining major applications. We plan to change an outdated provision in the GDPO that allows applicants to appeal major applications for non-determination after only eight weeks. This is an unreasonable turnaround time for local authorities, not to mention being out of kilter with government targets of 13 weeks. Our proposals would alter the period that an applicant must wait before appealing a major application to 13 weeks, harmonising government best value targets and government guidance with the relevant secondary legislation.
	The best practice guidance on the validity of planning applications published on 7 March was the first stage in clarifying planning practice in this area. The second stage, outlined in the consultation paper, is to clarify the idea of a "valid application". We want to specify in secondary legislation that a planning application is valid only when it contains all the information required by local authorities and when accompanied by the correct fee. This measure would cut down on the number of applications that go to the Planning Inspectorate on appeal without ever having been accepted as valid by a local authority and would generally increase the accessibility and transparency of the planning application process.
	We also want to use this opportunity to establish in secondary legislation the exact period of determination: from the first full day after a valid planning application has been received until the day on which a decision notice is dispatched.
	We intend that, after a 14-week consultation period and consideration of the responses received, the provisions would come into effect in the autumn.
	The other paper I am publishing today contains proposals for a standard application form for planning applications and related consent regimes. The paper refers to a prototype electronic application form called 1 APP which can be tested on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website. The prototype allows for householder applications, demolition in a conservation area and listed building consent. Our intention is to develop the electronic form to cover all related consent regimes, including outline and full planning permission, trees, advertisements, minerals and waste. In finalising the form we will take account of work under the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's householder development consents review. When the electronic form goes live, probably next year, people will be able to apply either on-line or on paper.
	Copies of the documents will be made available in the Libraries of the House.

Hull and East Riding (Gateway) Market Renewal Pathfinder

Lord Rooker: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	Today I am announcing that we are awarding £16 million from the Housing Market Renewal Fund to the Hull and East Riding (Gateway) market renewal pathfinder to help revitalise areas in Hull blighted by abandoned homes and low-demand housing. This investment will enable the pathfinder to start projects to improve poor quality housing and weak housing markets, working in partnership with the private sector.
	Over the next year, gateway will begin delivering:
	the redevelopment of poor standard housing on The Ings estate in Hull;
	the assembly of sites of land for housing redevelopment in West Hull, to replace abandoned homes; and
	the restructuring of existing plans to redevelop the Kingswood area in the north of the city so that it reconnects with North Bransholme estate in Hull, enabling the serious abandonment problems to be tackled more effectively.
	The pathfinder will bring forward a scheme update in 2006 enabling further grant, of up to £35 million to be awarded then.

Local Government Performance

Lord Rooker: My right honourable friend the Minister for Local and Regional Government has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	Today we are making a number of announcements relating to local government performance and the improvement of local services. We are publishing the fourth in a series of discussion documents taking forward the debate on the future of local government that we began last July with the publication of The Future of Local Government: Developing a 10 Year Vision.
	Securing Better Outcomes: Developing a New Performance Framework is intended to stimulate debate around the key principles that the Government consider should make up a new performance framework to secure more effective and efficient delivery of local services. The document is jointly published with the Treasury and, building on the devolving decision-making review last year, sets out a broad framework for developing a more devolved approach to delivery of local services, including increased personalisation of services. It emphasises:
	opportunities for users and residents to influence local priorities and the design and delivery of services—including through more choice and personalisation;
	a reduction in bureaucracy through a more coherent approach to managing performance, with clear national priorities, but with local government having the freedom to take responsibility for securing outcomes that meet the needs of their citizens and for improving their own performance in the way that the best councils are doing;
	more flexibility to enable faster and better tailored responses to local circumstances, building on the experience of local area agreements;
	the potential for developing an increasingly area-based approach between councils and their partners with greater focus on accountability between local partners in achieving common outcomes for the area;
	the importance of strategic, integrated relationship management through Government Offices to tailor negotiations, co-ordinate engagement and support, and challenge and respond to significant under-performance;
	the need for better and more transparent information to underpin any effective performance system.
	The discussion paper also expands on the Chancellor's Budget announcement about a rationalised inspection landscape, including the creation of a single local services inspectorate by 2008. This inspectorate will bring together the functions of the Audit Commission and the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in relation to inspection of English local authorities. It will also have an important role as a gatekeeper and co-ordinator for all inspection of local authorities. The paper also looks at how inspection could be refocused in the longer term.
	Copies of the document have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and are available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website www.odpm.gov.uk/localvision. I would urge those with an interest in local government to let us know their views on the issues discussed in this and the other discussion documents we have published.
	The Government's aim is to give people the powers and resources to have a greater influence over the key decisions which affect their community. The new local area agreements, which were the subject of the first Local:Vision discussion document, are one example of how we are enabling local authorities to work in partnership with other organisations in the public, private and voluntary sectors to target resources on local priorities.
	The first 20 local area agreements (LAAs) will be signed today marking the successful completion of the negotiations on these pilots. The full, long-term agreements will be in place from 1 April 2005, enabling some £500 million of central government funding to be pooled or aligned locally to achieve better outcomes. The signing of these first LAAs means they can now be translated into better delivery of local public services. LAAs will simplify funding streams and help to join up public services. They will also enable local areas to have more freedom to work in innovative ways to benefit their communities.
	As well as celebrating the success of those involved in the first round of LAAs, today we are also laying out future developments for LAAs. This includes publishing the application criteria for a further 40 LAAs to be in place by April 2006. As with the first phase of pilot LAAs, the aim will be to ensure that there is a good regional spread of areas, a mix of single tier authorities and counties and linkages with other pilot initiatives in the next phase. Areas wishing to be in the next phase will have until mid-May to express an interest and areas selected will be announced in June.
	It will also be confirmed later today that responsibility for local public service agreement (LPSA) negotiations will be transferred from departmental teams to the Government Offices, also responsible for overseeing the negotiations for LAAs. LPSAs cover additional service targets agreed between central and local government, with the incentive of additional grant rewards if these targets are met. The second generation of LPSAs are increasingly focused on local priorities and are more rigorously outcome-based. Aligning LAAs and LPSAs will help make these initiatives mutually reinforcing, and maximise the potential benefits they offer.
	Today's signing ceremony will also highlight the new LAA fourth block, which will focus on economic development. Where LAAs are in place the new local enterprise growth initiative (LEGI) will be channelled through this fourth block, as proposed in last week's Budget. LAAs will allow local authorities to pool this fund and other economic and enterprise funding streams in one place and to use them in a flexible way.
	I am also pleased to announce that as a result of the first round of the LPSA scheme 15 local authorities will receive reward grants totalling £93 million over the next two years. The councils, from across the country, have earned the reward grants for improving performance across a range of services to levels above those previously agreed.
	We have also launched a leaflet today bringing local government up to date with the joint Local Government Association/Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Capacity Building Programme. The Capacity Building Programme aims to support improvement in local government, by enhancing and developing councils' confidence, leadership, and skills to drive forward improvement as well as developing their capacity to learn, innovate and share knowledge and expertise about what works and how. The leaflet provides details of who is eligible to participate and how the programme can be accessed as well as encouraging local authorities to form improvement partnerships.
	Improvement partnerships are voluntary partnerships formed when a group of authorities and/or or fire and rescue authorities come together to improve their internal capacity either at regional or sub-regional level. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will make £57 million available from the Capacity Building Programme over the next three years to support these improvement partnerships.
	Several regions have work under way to develop improvement partnerships, the furthest advanced of which is the North West Improvement Network (NWIN). We will provide NWIN with £7.9 million over the next three years to support it in its work of creating a network of local authorities and other partners in the region committed to mutual improvement.
	These announcements show the Government's continuing commitment to working with local government to improve the outcomes for all our citizens, by allowing local authorities and their local partners more flexibility to be able to make the decisions about the issues that affect their areas.

Law Commission: Quinquennial Review

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	On 12 May 2003 my noble friend, Baroness Scotland of Asthal, the then Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, announced that John Halliday CB had submitted the report of his independent review of the Law Commission on 31 March 2003. She added that the Lord Chancellor had welcomed the thrust of the recommendations and asked the Ministerial Committee on the Law Commission, which is currently chaired by me, to oversee the action taken on the report.
	The ministerial committee subsequently authorised the setting up of an interdepartmental project board to manage the implementation of the recommendations. This board has now completed its task and been dissolved.
	In all, of the 42 recommendations made, 39 have now been dealt with; two are for the future; and one is being taken forward separately.
	Major themes of the 39 recommendations included:
	more effective communication between the Law Commission, government departments and other stakeholders. As a result a "Vision and Guidance" document, that sets out how the Law Commission and government departments will work together, has been published;
	ensuring that the Law Commission's programmes of law reform are based on the best possible assessment of needs, priorities and resources. Consequently, the Law Commission undertook a wide consultation when preparing its ninth programme, which has been published today, 22 March 2005;
	the development of more effective programme and project management at the Law Commission. As a result, the Law Commission has established a new electronic programme management system that will come into operation at the start of the ninth programme on 1 April 2005; and
	improving the processes for deciding on and implementing Law Commission recommendations. As a result, time limits have been set by the Ministerial Committee on the Law Commission within which government departments are required to respond to commission reports.
	Recommendation 30, aimed at identifying special parliamentary procedures to facilitate scrutiny of Law Commission Bills, is being taken forward separately by the Department for Constitutional Affairs.
	The "Vision and Guidance" and the paper setting out the quinquennial review recommendations and how the Government have responded to them have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will shortly be available on the website of the Department for Constitutional Affairs at www.dca.gov.uk.

Parliamentary Questions

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Treasury has conducted a review into the costing of Oral and Written Parliamentary Questions. The revised costs, which will apply from 1 April 2005, are:
	Oral Questions: £369
	Written Questions: £134
	The disproportionate cost threshold (DCT) relating to Answers to Written Parliamentary Questions and the recently introduced cost limit for requests to central government under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) are set at the same level—£600. The FoIA cost limit is due to be reviewed later this year. In order to maintain consistency between the two limits for the time being, the DCT will remain at £600.

House of Lords: Contingencies Fund Advance

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The House of Lords is shortly to purchase new accommodation. In lieu of completion, which is expected to take place shortly, the Treasury agreed a cash advance essential to the purchase from the Contingencies Fund on 16 March in the sum of £50,294,225. This advance was given prior to the Royal Assent to the Appropriation Act on 17 March which gives parliamentary authority for the expenditure.
	The advance will be repaid from the spring Supplementary Estimate.

Financial Services

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My honourable friend the Financial Secretary (Mr. Stephen Timms) has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Treasury is today publishing The UK Financial Services Sector: Rising to the Challenges and Opportunities of Globalisation. Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House. The document is also accessible on the Treasury website at www.hm-treasury.gov.uk.
	The paper sets out how the UK financial services sector will be integral to helping the rest of the UK economy and society to respond to long-term global economic changes, and presents a series of associated challenges for the sector and for policy-makers.

Construction Industry: Payment Practices

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nigel Griffiths) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am pleased to announce that today, with Edwina Hart AM the Welsh Assembly Government Minister for Social Justice and Regeneration, I have launched a joint consultation on Improving Payment Practices in the Construction Industry.
	The consultation proposes a number of amendments to Part II of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998.
	The proposals are aimed at improving the ability of parties to a construction contract to:
	reach agreement on what should be paid and when given the work done under the contract or, where they cannot agree, to make an informed referral to, or response at, adjudication;
	manage cash flow and enable completion of work on the project in the event of problems such as defaulted payments, disputes or insolvencies elsewhere in the supply chain; and
	refer disputes to adjudication without disincentives such as avoidance, frustration or unnecessary challenge.
	Fair payment practice is something everyone agrees with and a fair payment culture underpins any progressive and modern industry.
	This consultation considers a number of issues around the key principles of improving the ability of people in the construction industry to manage cash flow on construction projects and to bring about effective delivery, on time and to budget. It provides the opportunity for the whole industry and its clients to come together around a shared set of proposals.
	The consultation considers issues and proposals identified during Sir Michael Latham's initial review of the construction Act, published in September 2004. Following the announcement of the review in the Budget in March 2004, I appointed Sir Michael to produce his report with input from the construction industry representative bodies and other stakeholders. Sir Michael's report raised some key issues. While the continued support of the construction industry representative bodies is vital to the effectiveness of this consultation process, we also hope to build a wider and deeper consensus on how to improve the construction contracts legislation and payment practices in the construction industry.
	We have come a long way since the announcement of the review in the 2004 Budget and I hope this consultation process can take the dialogue within the industry further forward over the coming months.
	The consultation considers 14 key proposals for amending Part II of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998. These are:
	Payment framework
	defining the content of an adequate payment mechanism in Section 110(1) of the construction Act;
	removing the requirement to serve a Section 110(2) notice in the construction Act;
	providing an application for payment in the legislation;
	redefining the content of withholding notices under Section 111; and
	restricting the use of pay-when-certified clauses.
	Other payment proposals
	introducing a right to reimbursement for the costs of suspension and remobilisation and providing additional time for remobilisation under Section 112 of the construction Act;
	making contractual provisions on cross-contract set-off ineffective;
	making pay-when-paid clauses ineffective in cases of "upstream" insolvency proceedings; and
	Allowing stage payments under the Scheme for Construction Contracts to be made for materials in advance of their arrival on site.
	Adjudication proposals
	preventing the use of "trustee stakeholder accounts" to suspend an adjudicator's award pending litigation other than when the recipient is involved in insolvency proceedings;
	providing the adjudicator with the power to rule on certain aspects of his own jurisdiction and providing a right to payment in cases where the adjudicator stands down due to lack of jurisdiction;
	providing the adjudicator with the right to overturn "final and conclusive" decisions where these are of substance to interim payments only;
	extending the adjudicator's immunity under the construction Act to claims by third parties; and
	applying provisions on adjudicator independence from the Scheme for Construction Contracts to all adjudications in Section 108 of the construction Act.
	The consultation period will close on 21 June 2005.

EU: ACP Economic Partnership Agreements

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Hewitt) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The EU is currently negotiating economic partnership agreements (EPAs) with the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, which have been the source of some concern for Members of the House. I warmly welcome the recent commitment made by Peter Mandelson, the European Trade Commissioner, to introduce a much stronger development focus into EPAs. I agree with him that these agreements should promote development by combining aid with wider opportunities for all ACP countries to trade with each other on an integrated regional basis, and with the EU. In this Statement, I would like to set out how the UK believes a stronger development focus could be delivered.
	EPAs must be designed to deliver long-term development, economic growth and poverty reduction in ACP countries. To do so, we believe that in its work on EPAs with ACP regional groups, the EU should take a non-mercantilist approach and not pursue any offensive interests.
	Developing countries can benefit from liberalisation in the long run, provided they have the economic capacity and infrastructure they need to trade competitively. However, without the capacity or the right conditions, trade liberalisation can be harmful.
	Each ACP regional group should make its own decisions on the timing, pace, sequencing, and product coverage of market opening in line with individual countries' national development plans and poverty reduction strategies. Regional groups should have the flexibility to move towards more open markets along a non-linear path if necessary. We will not force trade liberalisation on developing countries either through trade negotiations or aid conditionality.
	EPAs must ensure that ACP regional groups have maximum flexibility over their own market opening. The EU should therefore offer all ACP regional groups a period of 20 years or more for market opening, on an unconditional basis. Each regional group should be offered this full period.
	Within EPAs, the EU should make an upfront offer of complete duty and quota-free market access to each ACP regional group, with no strings attached. In addition, the EU should further simplify and liberalise rules of origin under EPAs. There should be an effective safeguard mechanism for ACP countries to use if faced with a surge of subsidised EU imports.
	EPAs should be accompanied by additional resources to enable the ACP countries to benefit from trade reforms and build their export competitiveness. The EU, in co-ordination with international financial institutions and other donors, must provide additional financial assistance to support the ACP countries. This assistance must support them in building the infrastructure and economic capacity they need to benefit from trade with the EU and the rest of the world, and put in place the institutions to help manage change and protect vulnerable people, supporting poorer countries with the cost of transition.
	Investment, competition and government procurement should be removed from the negotiations, unless specifically requested by an ACP regional negotiating group. It is for ACP regional groups to judge the development benefits of any agreements on these issues and the EU should not push for them to be discussed. If included, any negotiations on government procurement should be limited to transparency.
	A review mechanism for EPAs—with full ACP regional group ownership and participation—should be introduced to ensure they are delivering the intended developmental benefits. The Commission should be ready to provide an alternative to an EPA at the request of any ACP country. Any alternative offered should provide no worse market access to the EU than is currently enjoyed under Cotonou preferences.
	In addition, the EU should propose within the WTO that Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade should be reviewed as suggested by the Commission for Africa, in order to reduce the requirements for reciprocity and increase the focus on development priorities.
	Implemented along these lines, economic partnership agreements should provide real development benefits to the ACP countries.

Patent Office: Key Performance Targets 2005–06.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Hewitt) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I have tasked the Patent Office with managing and shaping an intellectual property system which encourages innovation and creativity, balances the needs of consumers and users, promotes strong and competitive markets and provides a firm foundation for the knowledge-based economy. During the coming year, the Patent Office will develop these new activities and form partnerships through which new services will be delivered.
	I have also set the Patent Office the following targets for 2005–06:
	Patents
	Issue 90 per cent of patent search reports within five months of request.
	Grant 90 per cent of patents within 21.5 years of request.
	Give good customer service in patent search and examination in 95 per cent of quality assured cases.
	Designs
	Register 95 per cent of correctly filed design applications, to which no substantive objections have been raised, within three months of the date of application.
	Trade Marks
	Register 90 per cent of processed trade mark class applications, to which no substantive objections are raised or oppositions filed within eight months of application.
	Achieve an average of 23 weeks to issue a decision in trade marks inter partes cases once the case is ready.
	Make the correct decision on registrability for at least 98.5 per cent of trade mark applications.